You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Description:
This simulation uses a 1 degree FV grid for CLM and a ne30pg3 grid for CAM and OCN. Moving fowards AMIP simulations with the trigrid should probably use the ocean on a tnx1v4 grid so the grid configuration for AMIP will look exactly like the grid configuration for fully coupled.
Compset long name
1850_CAM%DEV%LT%NORESM%CAMoslo_CLM51%SP_CICE%PRES_DOCN%DOM_MOSART_SGLC_SWAV_SESP
Model grid long name
a%ne30np4.pg3_l%0.9x1.25_oi%ne30np4.pg3_r%r05_w%null_z%null_g%null_m%tnx1v4
@oyvindseland has pointed out that it looks like the trigrid version has considerable lower dust concentration (and emissions?) to the extent that the cloud forcing is mid between nf1850oslo and ghgmam4.
Its important to note that with trigrid both the surface dataset and the initial dataset between the two runs will be different in addition to a remapping of states and fluxes between the atm and land. So these additional differences could possibly also help explain the larger than expected differences in some fields between the trigrid and dual grid configurations.
Output:
Raw output on nird (if still available):
/nird/datalake/NS2345K/mvertens/test_nf1850oslo_trigrid
Noting that while it isn't totally clear to me why the dust is higher, it is typical to retune the dust in coupled model climates in any case. The way that FATES handles bare ground fraction is a little different too, so this might well need to happen in any case.
Purpose:
Trigrid simulation to be compared to #10
Description:
This simulation uses a 1 degree FV grid for CLM and a ne30pg3 grid for CAM and OCN. Moving fowards AMIP simulations with the trigrid should probably use the ocean on a tnx1v4 grid so the grid configuration for AMIP will look exactly like the grid configuration for fully coupled.
Compset long name
1850_CAM%DEV%LT%NORESM%CAMoslo_CLM51%SP_CICE%PRES_DOCN%DOM_MOSART_SGLC_SWAV_SESP
Model grid long name
a%ne30np4.pg3_l%0.9x1.25_oi%ne30np4.pg3_r%r05_w%null_z%null_g%null_m%tnx1v4
Case directory:
Locally
/nird/datalake/NS2345K/mvertens/cases/test_nf1850oslo_trigrid
On github:
In progress
Code version on github (either NorESMhub or user's fork):
https://github.com/mvertens/NorESM/tree/feature/noresm2_5_alpha03_v1
Diagnostics:
@oyvindseland has pointed out that it looks like the trigrid version has considerable lower dust concentration (and emissions?) to the extent that the cloud forcing is mid between nf1850oslo and ghgmam4.
Its important to note that with trigrid both the surface dataset and the initial dataset between the two runs will be different in addition to a remapping of states and fluxes between the atm and land. So these additional differences could possibly also help explain the larger than expected differences in some fields between the trigrid and dual grid configurations.
Output:
/nird/datalake/NS2345K/mvertens/test_nf1850oslo_trigrid
Contacts:
@mvertens
Extra details:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: